click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121114
20121114
STATION
CSPAN2 6
CNN 4
CNNW 4
KQEH (PBS) 3
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
CSPAN 2
KQED (PBS) 2
FBC 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 1
WHUT (Howard University Television) 1
WMPT (PBS) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 40
Search Results 0 to 39 of about 40 (some duplicates have been removed)
do to achieve specific ends part of their goal in foreign policy and national security policy. that's what public diplomacy is supposed to do. now, if everybody loved us, it may be easier to achieve those goals, but it's really hard to get everybody to love us. that's a long term project, and generally, a futile project. it's much more important to do as president obama said right in the beginning from the inaugural speech that we need to focus on mutual interest and mutual respect, and there are many things that we can get done in that fashion. i think that discretionary -- diplomacy 230e cueses on specific, strategic goals, and if it failed in any way in the last several decades, it's been that it's not focused on those goals. >> i'm in agreement with jim on this issue. it's note a population contest, but it's absolutely the wrong -- the results are not great results if that's the measurement. one of the things that we tried to do, again, building on the base that jim and his team put in place was to be sure that everything we were doing in public diplomacy actually was designed t
in foreign policy appetite in national security both on the part of the two parties and on the part of the american public. what do i mean when i say that? there is no appetite for another land war in asia or continuing the land war in asia we have in afghanistan and we saw in the concluded presidential campaigns that the candidate who had a wing of the party pushing to take the view we should be in afghanistan longer, that we should do more, something militarily in iran but continually pushed away from that by the more politically minded wing of the party reading internal polling that says there's not much difference on afghanistan between republicans and democrats so you don't have the demand side for the kind of military spending we have seen over the last decade and no longer have public outcry from military spending as a response to terrorism. the second point related to that which is a two edged sword is the public believes that there are cheaper technological solutions to our national security problem and the most obvious exponents of this is drones and other remote wrote --
, interestingly, to telescope a long argument, the area of greatest continuity in u.s. foreign policy since the time of nixon has been our dealings with china. where, on the one hand, we think it's better if they grow than if they don't. on the other hand, we have all sorts of problems with them. i think that is the way obama has pursued it and will keep pursuing it. so i think they actually are relieved to have a second term. >> what do they want from us? >> they want essentially a chance to develop. i -- >> you mean develop economically? >> develop economically. and just to sort of breathe. when i lived in japan, i was quite alarmed, and remain so, about sort of the zero-sumness of many of japan's economic ambitions, which sort of came out of american achievement. in china's case, i think it's different. it's a gigantic poor country where most people are still poor. the per capita income is still, like, one-fifth what it is in the united states. a lot of really rich people, but still they have more farmers than we have people. and it's a giant challenge. and so i think what they want is i
with our foreign policy. >> now, governor, senator mccain last month said -- well, let me let you hear what he said. this is amazing to me. >> it's very clear this was a colossal failure that cost the lives of four brave young americans. there has not been an intelligence fail like this in my lifetime and i have been around for a long time. >> there has not been an intelligence fail like this in his lifetime? what about 9/11? what about the iraq war with weapons of mass destruction where 3,000 americans died? what's he talking about? >> four americans are obviously four too many. but because our intelligence system broke down we went to war in iraq and over 3,000 americans died. how can he dare contrast those two? the thing that bugs me about this is there was a potential screw-up. we didn't have the right security in place in benghazi. susan rice had nothing to do with it. she wasn't in the chain of command. she didn't have any responsibility at all. all she did was go on television and, as you said, give the report that the cia had given to her. how can they pick on susan rice? why not wa
won, you have a more flexible foreign policy. >> uh-huh. >> so the prognosis so far looks positive because you have these two leadership groups who more or less are willing to accommodate, negotiate, and so forth and so on. but the problem in asia, of course, is that you have some very stubborn views. in the countries, japan, korea, vietnam, philippines, they're all disputing these islands, and it can get out of control. >> tom: mark, how long have you been investing in china or looking at chi for capital? >> it has been over 30 years. >> tom: how would you describe today's opportunity over the course of that generation of vistain investing time? >> it is incredible. ever day you see opportunities in china. the demand for services, for products, you name it. they hunger for all of these things, and they will increase. it will not decrease, because of the wages going up. >> tom: we will have more of our conversation with mark mobius next week on thanksgiving night. he tells us globalization has made the u.s. fiscal cliff a worldwide issue for investors. >> susie: that's "nightly bus
of foreign policy. a runaway train. most of the assistance programs need to have much more scrutiny overseen by the state department's broader foreign policy. >> i think we have had the discussion of why a military sequester might be well command for good reasons and i want to thank the audience for paying close attention and panelists for their presentations. >> more now from a new america foundation forum on the so-called fiscal cliff. over the next hour and 10 minutes a discussion about automatic budget cuts benefiting social programs. >> i am vice president of the economic policy center for american progress and i will be moderating this panel. i caught a bit of the last panel and we will be moving from guns to butter i guess or something. as we talk about how we are going to deal with the fiscal cliff, whether or it will be a grand bargain or models through or whatever happens, there are a number of programs that are undoubtedly going to get particular attention, really hot potatoes. they are programs that are very much the public is very aware of and things very much in the political d
in recent foreign- policy history is on tv defending david petraeus without actually addressing the real problems with the petraeus' record. those are the fact he manipulated the white house about afghanistan, ran a campaign in iraq there was brutally savage including the worst of the worse, sunni militiamen, shiite death squads. then you go back to the training of the iraqi army that had similar problems. for me, all the while he is going around the country talking about honor and integrity. >> that was michael hastings speaking on piers morgan. >> i think michael hastings is a fascinating case he wrote a cover story about general mcchrystal on "the rolling stone" who ended general mcchrystal's career. what was amazing is nobody doubted the authenticity of the quotes included in this article, yet huge numbers of the most prominent media figures who covered the war in afghanistan attack michael hastings facetiously -- attacked michael hastings viciously, accusing him of violating the trust of the general. not because he reported things that are supposed to be off the record, but they say
of the most recent foreign policy debacles is addressing general petraeus. those raising those concerns, you might not get that from cnn a spokesperson for the pentagon in many ways. >> our own notebook there, a body slam of cnn and the generals. i want to show you cnn's reaction. >> bob is not a spokesperson for the agency. >> i followed her coverage closely. >> just because she's written naughty things about you doesn't make her a spokesperson. >> what makes her a spokesperson is repeating a lot of pentagon claims. >> journalists who challenge the government are seen as oh, wacky outsiders, and the only thing that ever gets you in trouble is not reckless wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people, but sex. >> at beginning, i was thinking the same thing why is this going on because of a sex scandal, it's between him and his wife. but then, a few other angles came saying this could be a security issue who knew, who didn't know. i'm fine with all those questions being answered. what's weird and i understand from a different level is people forget they hold these positions, hey do me this
tonight. for more on the larger impact of the scandal let's bring in the foreign policy expert, james traub. mr. traub, you usually inform us about deeply important things going on in afghanistan iraq, around the world. now we're talking about e-mails and tawdry behavior. >> it is like a novel. i'm reading the kind of novel i don't normally read. >> eliot: we know you read them but that's okay. >> yeah. it's just -- it's like watching a car pileup, right? you really think i don't want to know this. you keep watching, reading. you love it. but how much of this matters? how much does it matter to us? not to holly petraeus. does it matter to us that david petraeus had an affair with paula broadwell. allegedly it does because he's the head of the c.i.a. and he could be blackmailed. well that's like boris and natasha stuff to me. this must have been true. it was true in the 1950s. who's going to be blackmailing him? the russians or the chinese are going to say we're going to tell the world you had an affair or otherwi
to catch up with most of you on foreign policy and security. >> the whole key of the issue is what the president was talking about. what happened during that attack. the united states at one advance said the c.i.a. was told to stand down and general petraeus issued a statement saying the c.i.a., at no level did anybody at any time tell the c.i.a. to stand down. that is the question. who did tell them to? >> bob: how do you know it was said? >> fox news found e-mails. >> eric: here is the c.i.a. timeline they put out. they sent the drone unarmed drones observe and what they observed was rocket fire, .50 caliber machine gun. they can go on and on. they are specific. military predator drone arrives on the compound to provide aerial surveillance. they go to weaponry used. >> bob: did you know one of the drones over there was on its way back to italy to be refueled? >> they sent a backup drone. >> bob: right. they did send a backup drone. i defy anybody to look at the pictures and tell me that you can come up with something -- >> greg: they did. >> bob: they said they saw the attack. a
have to change our foreign policy and monetary policy and change our entitlement system. there was nowhere close to talking about that. talking $80 billion cuts here or there. it will postpone the inevitable until it much bigger crisis comes and that could come anytime, probably next year or so. and we will be forced to do with because people will be rejecting the money and they will quit buying our debt and there'll be no other choice than to face up to the realities that we are broke. david: enormous increase in spending that began with president obama. verse $800 billion stimulus which was supposed to be a one-shot deal, but he carried that over year over year. that is why we have a trillion dollars deficit for the past four years including the past fiscal year that ended at the end of september. the $800 billion that were supposed to be a one-time shot for the economy has turned into a bottom-line budget going year after year ever since. >> seems they said don't cut my spending, i want reassurance, keep bailing out the auto industry and sending welfare checks. if he
, whether foreign or domestic policy this is the time for it. this is the time for transitions, where there's going to be at lot of turnover anyway. hillary clinton was leaving, leon panetta was leaving. do you want to deal with an additional moving part in petraeus and these circumstances? obviously not. but if there's going to be a time when things are going to be in chaos and you're going to have to be making decisions an moving ease pieces around the chess board it's the optimal time for it to happen. never a good time for this kind of scandal clearly, but if you would rather have had it now than five months from now or have it five months before now and it gives him a lot of flexibility in terms of how to fill those spots. there are a lot of players, we mentioned some of them just now, you did in the opening, a guy like chuck hagel, the president has trids to have a significant republican at a top position in his cabinet, before bob gates in the pentagon for the better part of the first term. i think he wants to do that again. his instinct towards not necessarily to hagel, although i t
part of the 20th century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security. to achieve these goals i thought the government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable cost of policing the world and expanding the american empire. the problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my viewpoint, just following the constraints based on the federal government by the constitution would have been a good place to start. just how much did i accomplish? in more ways according to conventional viss wisdom my off and on career in congress from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. no named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways, thank goodness. in spite of my efforts the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and a prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. wars are constant, and pursued without congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is ramp
describe her as a hard nosed diplomat who shares many of president obama's view on foreign policy. as you may recall, after the consulate attack, ambassador rice hit the sunday talk shows and claimed that that assault started as a peaceful protest over a viral anti-muslim video. she said at the time that militants hijacked the protest and killed four americans, including the u.s. ambassador to libya chris stevens. we now know that story is not true. shannon bream is live in washington with more. shannon, could that initial response keep secretary rice from being nominated to head the state department? >> well, shep, there are some who think that the comments ambassador rice made in the days just after the deadly benghazi attacks will amount to nothing more than a few awkward questions in a senate confirmation hearing should she be nominated. others including republic senator bob corker say it wouldn't be that simple. >> i still have no understanding how anybody who was anywhere near the loop of information could possibly have come out five days later on five different broadcasts and said
for the foreign policy component for the reelection now we could be completely undermined. >> president obama could not be too thrilled because he found out about that on tuesday night and the punt out about ellen friday night. not good. >> this was supposed to be deaf victory " honeymoon. >> and basically he it was- the honeymoon of the election but now--. and i think that there are more shoes left to drop. >> to be continued. we would like to know more about that shirtless fbi agent. >> as you mentioned, there are lots of layers and players in this story around general david petraeus. we are asking you on facebook. what is most intriguing? go to our facebook, " like " us and we will let you know what you tell us. >> now that the sun is going down there are some wild places. with 50s for the most part. --mild places for the most part. with the 60s along the peninsula and the south bay. as we go for tomorrow, 70's for the most part. however, it is going to cool down as the rain fall approaches. it will stay with us for the weekend. first, let us talk about the cloud coverage into the north ba
a successful foreign policy that was supposedly from the beginning his weakness, but which has turned out to be one of his real strengths. so, unfortunately, all of this -- this commitment to our patriotic togetherness and unity that we will govern this country across the aisles with bipartisan attention is being foiled, input president obama showed, as you said, rare, if you will, anger, a flash of real support for susan rice, and indicating he's up to the battle. that should he choose her to become part of his cabinet, he will put her forth with the full expectation that she will be vented in the ways she should be -- vetted, excuse me, in the way she should be without that rancor. you can be assure, the rancor will be following if she's nominated. this po >> lynn, you were there in the east room when the president was speaking. can you recall him being so intense, so passionate about an issue as he was then? >> that was a special moment, being in the room, you could feel the intensity. i was sitting a few feet from him. you could -- you could -- that steely gaze that he really was sett
on his foreign policy and national security ajen -- agenda. he has confidence in the acting cia director, the military, the secretary of defense, and the defense department to carry out missions he's assigned to them, but he's got, obviously, a lot that he wants to get to work on, and he's doing that this week. >> broadly, how does that affect his need to advance the national security team? >> you know, again, i think these are specific questions about specific individuals and posts. i have no announcements to make with regard to personnel or speculations to engage in. the president has not decided on personnel manners, and you will not hear me discuss them until the president made the decisions and announced me. >> thank you. >> yeah. >> jay, you say they regard two specific people, two of the top military brass involved in an extramarital affair or inappropriate behavior. is the president all worry about an inappropriate culture in the military? >> i really would ask you to not extrapolate broadly. the president has confidence in the military, his commanders, and will continue to have
especially in foreign policy. i know susan rice. i've known her a long time. she's honorable, experienced, dedicated. and i got those intelligence briefs in the morning whenever we were dealing with the crisis. >> when you were u.n. ambassador? >> when i was u.n. ambassador. you act and say what your intelligence briefing said at the time. but then those intelligence briefings change because there's an ongoing investigation of what happened in benghazi. >> she went on the five sunday talk shows five days or so after the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi that killed the u.s. ambassador and three other americans. and what she said was not accurate. but she insists she was just repeating what she had been briefed by the intelligence community. >> that's the information she had. and i think just apart from that, wolf, a president should have the right to nominate who he wants for secretary of state. >> but the senate has the right to confirm or reject, right? >> i know. but the candidates if it's senator kerry, susan rice, ambassador rice, two excellent candidates, i mean, i don't thin
foreign policy. and in august he had another brief press conference taking questions from four reporters. today we're expecting he will be asked about this scandal no doubt involving the generals and also the fiscal cliff. we expect that he will, as he has before, expressed support for tax increases on the wealthiest americans. the question may be how wealthy. the president has said $250,000 or more for a couple. but perhaps it will be more. we'll see if he puts meat on the bones there. and also benghazi. this will be the first press conference since that attack in egypt that killed a u.s. ambassador and three other americans. and i wouldn't be surprised as well, carol, if he gets questions about looming cabinet appointments. >> i bet he will. news conferences used to be a regular occurrence with the president. any chance these will happen more frequently? >> reporter: i don't know. we did see in the campaign that the president preferred to, instead, do sbrinterviews with local stations and use social media. obviously when there's a press conference with the white house press corps and w
because of that. when you have women's voices in committees on transportation and foreign policy, on budget, on all these critical issues, it works better for the nation. >> i agree with you on that. let's talk about nancy pelosi. everyone says she's going to decide what she wants to decide. what do you think? do you think she'll stay or do you think she'll go? >> i would have no idea. i can say that nancy pelosi has done an incredible job over the last years leading her caucus in difficult times, has been a voice for many americans and i wish her well in whatever she decides to do at this point. >> another one who will not say -- >> i have no idea. >> i understand. >> i have no idea. >> let's talk about the fiscal cliff, if we can. you have said that if we reach a point at the end of this year, i'm quoting from you, where all the tax cuts expire and we'll start over next year and whatever we do will be a tax cut for a package we want to put together. which to me reads as let's go over the fiscal clf. is that what you're saying, we should go over the cliff? >> soledad, i, like ev
to do mostly with foreign policy. he had a very limited press conference this summer. so this is the chance for reporters to ask him all kinds of questions that we have on our mind. i think he's going to be asked, obviously, about the fiscal cliff. i think he'll probably shy away from specifics there because he doesn't want to box himself in or out of anything as we heard jay carney said. he's definitely going to be asked about the scandal involving the generals, specifically i wonder if he'll be asked about the notification process. he really got one day notice that he was going to be losing his cia director. and then benghazi, that has happened and there hasn't been a press conference since. he'll be asked about that. and also no doubt about cabinet appointments as we hear a lot of names in the mix, zoraida. >> lots to talk at. brianna keilar, thank you so much. >>> there's a lot going on in washington including questions this morning surrounding nancy pelos pelosi's future. she is expected to announce whether she'll seek another stint at the house minority leader. she
administrations to share information with those of us that are supposed to make critical foreign policy decisions and the budget process. very unwilling, and certainly this is another case of the. but i was struck as well that, you need to tell me the head of the cia uses gmail? [inaudible] >> to communicate? it just struck me that i'm very concerned about the. and, obviously, there will be some areas into this but i see this coming, and apparently he has agreed to testify, as he should, like everybody involved should be testifying in his and provide as much openness as possible. i look forward to the committee taking a lead on that. [inaudible] >> some of your colleagues on ssi, senate republicans are time of making a deal with with democrats to find a compromise. first of all, what do you make of those efforts? second, how far are you willing to go to to strike an immigration deal with democrats? >> well, that is a good question and i wouldn't have been surprised if i didn't hear it. i think that, i seen a bit of a pattern over the years of people coming into this congress and taking a look at
have spoken on this floor about excessive government spending, it's time to look at the cost of foreign wars before we start cutting domestic programs that our very own people need and they need them to survive. it's just not progressives like me who believe we need a change in policy, mr. speaker. there is a clear consensus among the american people. they agree that this military occupation is bad for america, bad for afghanistan and bad for the cause of peace and stability around the world. i think it was pretty telling that during the recent campaign even the republican candidate for president ended up supporting a withdrawal of troops by 2014, but in my opinion that's not nearly soon enough. . now that the presidential campaign is over, we must accelerate the timetable and end this war as soon as it is possible and safe. every remaining day we have troops on the ground is another day that gives strength to the very, treatmentists we are trying to defeat. the time has come to invest in afghanistan the right way, with humanitarian and civilian support, rather than military force. it's
how to use that. have you shape foreign policy? nothing is ever perfect but there is the realization but dead digital out reached team started and has been very aggressive. >> very interesting. most not associate the then diagram blending with radio free asia and of the broadcast network how we converse with the public we may not be receiving free or unfiltered news. then the conversation should it be news? . .
Search Results 0 to 39 of about 40 (some duplicates have been removed)